Open mike 23/10/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:40 am, October 23rd, 2014 - 193 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

Norm Kirk Goff Whitlam square-1Open mike is your post.

The Standard is not a conspiracy – just a welcome outlet for the expression of views. Leaders that command respect will not be undermined by this.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

193 comments on “Open mike 23/10/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Rawmadness Natshark 1
    23 October 2014 at 6:56 am

    Employment laws. No breaks entitlement.

    Considering quitting my job as a form of protest.

    Had enough of this shit.

    • vto 1.1
      23 October 2014 at 7:58 am

      Yep good.

      Businesses paying minimum wage which are not prepared a man a decent days pay for a decent days work, are now going to strip the workers of tea breaks etc?

      Bugger them and everyone who supports them.

      More people should give up on employers and go on the friggin’ dole. Employers like this deserve shit all.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1
        23 October 2014 at 8:29 am

        More people should give up on employers and go on the friggin’ dole.

        My suggestion is that they get together with their workmates and start a cooperative. The boss goes bankrupt and they’re still employed.

        Unfortunately, the high unemployment that National is maintaining, would work against them.

      • Tracey 1.1.2
        23 October 2014 at 9:10 am

        join their union

        • phillip ure 1.1.2.1
          23 October 2014 at 9:26 am

          we don’t call them ‘unions’ any more..we call them ‘associations’..

          ..(‘union’ is like a scary-word..like ‘ebola’…and ‘bennett’..)

          ..and the workers flag is no longer ‘deepest-red’..

          ..it is a washed-out pink..(some say it is a pale-blue..)

          ..and the labour party is now called ‘the refresh party’..

          ..and it comes with built-in bubbles..

          ..do try to keep up..!

          • vto 1.1.2.1.1
            23 October 2014 at 9:32 am

            lol, sounds quite pleasant now..

          • adam 1.1.2.1.2
            23 October 2014 at 10:39 am

            Nah lets frighten the bosses there phillip, call them syndicalist associations.

            • phillip ure 1.1.2.1.2.1
              23 October 2014 at 10:53 am

              or maybe just ‘the syndicate’..?

              (..’y’see..!..this is how me and the boys down at ‘the syndicate’ sees it..

              ..teabreaks..?..yeah..!..eh..?..and we don’t want no trouble..but..!’..)

              ..and ‘the labour party’..

              ..could change to ‘the enforcers’..

              ..vote for ‘the enforcers’…!..they’ll make it happen..!

              ..(that’s better than ‘vote positive’..

              ..and who the fuck will own up to that one..?

              ..that ‘vote positive’ dog..?

              ..whose brainfart-idea was it..?

              ..we demand public-flagellation..!

              • adam …
                23 October 2014 at 11:01 am

                public-flagellation..! Your problem Philip, is your to damn soft.

                Public-Flagellation followed by Crucifixion only way to teach these slackers the meaning of winning.

            • Molly 1.1.2.1.2.2
              23 October 2014 at 11:33 am

              Or take a leaf from the great propagandists of our time (the Koch brothers), rename the union subs “rates” and call them “Ratepayers Associations” – and confuse the hell out of everyone.

        • Rodel 1.1.2.2
          23 October 2014 at 9:02 pm

          Tracy Join their union-yes-yes That seriously is what is needed.
          Disregard the smart (dumb)-arse rhetoric of others trying to be clever.

    • SHG 1.2
      23 October 2014 at 12:30 pm

      Here’s how you do it: start your own business, compete against the former employer you hate, do better.

      • McFlock 1.2.1
        23 October 2014 at 3:48 pm

        While they have already established infrastructure and employ people under more profitable conditions. Thus winning the race to the bottom.

  2. Paul 2
    23 October 2014 at 7:41 am

    Herald’s headlines continue to beat up ‘terror.’
    To set up New Zealanders to accept new draconian spying and ‘terror’ laws for their master Key.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11346883
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11342460

    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

    Benjamin Franklin

    Brian Rudman writes well on the subject.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11342354

    as does Gwynne Dyer…
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-chronicle/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503423&objectid=11339588

    • Tracey 2.1
      23 October 2014 at 8:19 am

      the thing is that keys excuse for lying to the voters is that things are evolving quickly.

      NOTHING has escalated post election to suggest things are worse today than sept 19.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1
        23 October 2014 at 8:30 am

        Nothing has changed to say that things are worse today than they were 18 months ago.

        • Colonial Rawshark 2.1.1.1
          23 October 2014 at 8:43 am

          Funny that implementing measures directed against their own citizens appears to be the main mode of dealing with this “terrorism” BS. You might almost think there was another actual agenda going on.

        • Tracey 2.1.1.2
          23 October 2014 at 9:12 am

          well put

      • McFlock 2.1.2
        23 October 2014 at 3:51 pm

        It’s worrying that this govt are so keen to lock doors across the country based on the actions of solitary nutters or dicks on the other side of the planet.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.1
          23 October 2014 at 9:02 pm

          That’s just the excuse. IMO, why they’re doing it is another reason entirely and I don’t think the majority of people would like it if they knew.

  3. Colonial Rawshark 3
    23 October 2014 at 8:32 am

    Why is Canada so shocked that people want to attack its soldiers?

    And how the word "terrorism" is now a propaganda term for anything the state doesn't like – and for justifying anything under the sun the state decides to do.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/22/canada-proclaiming-war-12-years-shocked-someone-attacked-soldiers/

  4. phillip ure 4
    23 October 2014 at 8:37 am

    (in a world bereft of heroes..this guy is one of mine..)

    “..Meet the Researcher Who Thinks Cancer Can be Prevented – Even Reversed – Through Diet..” (ed:..disclaimer:..this man is a personal hero of mine..)

    ..The professor emeritus in nutritional biochemistry at Cornell University said research has proven that consumption of animal products –

    – including meat – fish – and dairy –

    – triggers chronic diseases and impaired health –

    – and poses a greater risk than heredity or environment.

    He has linked casein – a protein in milk – with breast cancer.

    His lifelong professional focus has been cancer and nutrition –

    – and Campbell says that our national and global fight with cancer has targeted the wrong enemy.

    Though he is scholarly and genteel – Campbell is not reserved.

    He’s impatient and blunt..”

    (cont..)

    (ed:..that is one of the most compelling arguments to stop consuming animals..and their bye-products..

    ..the overall better health that vegans seem to enjoy..) (cont..)

    http://whoar.co.nz/2014/meet-the-researcher-who-thinks-cancer-can-be-prevented-even-reversed-through-diet-ed-disclaimer-this-man-is-a-personal-hero-of-mine/

    • Belladonna 4.2
      23 October 2014 at 8:56 am

      Quite agree with you Phil, Prof Colin Campbell is a well respected scientist. The film Forks over Knives is available from your library and when it was shown at cinemas around the world was responsible for many people changing to a plant based diet.
      He, along with other top researchers who advocate a plant based diet should be listened to.

      • The Al1en 4.2.1
        23 October 2014 at 8:58 am

        Reverse cancer by diet is like reverse cancer by prayers.
        Sad.

        “The researchers say: ‘Our study has shown that Austrian adults who consume a vegetarian diet are less healthy (in terms of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), have a lower quality of life, and also require more medical treatment.”

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2596012/Vegetarians-healthy-poorer-quality-life-meat-eaters.html

        Vegetarians are ‘less healthy’ and have a poorer quality of life than meat-eaters
        Vegetarians visit their doctors more often and are more prone to allergies
        They also have ‘a 50% increased risk of both heart attacks and cancer’
        They are also more likely to develop depression and anxiety disorders
        But vegetarians tend to be more active and less likely to drink and smoke

        • phillip ure 4.2.1.1
          23 October 2014 at 9:08 am

          ‘daily mail’ as source..?

          ..pandering to their meat-advertisers..?

          ..hilarious..!

          ..why not ‘the beano’..?

          ..and there is also fox news as a fall-back..

          ..run..!..run young allen..!..run like the wind..!

          ..run to the fox news website..and key in anti-vegetarian/vegan..

          ..i am sure the results will be bountiful…

        • Belladonna 4.2.1.2
          23 October 2014 at 9:19 am

          Vegetarians also eat a lot of dairy which is the point that Prof Campbell makes.
          A vegan diet has been shown to improve health in many people. There have been many long term studies on this, the SDA church have carried out many such studies all of which were favourable to a vegan diet.
          The diet also gives a 100% guarantee that you are personally doing your bit to prevent animal cruelty.

          • Colonial Rawshark 4.2.1.2.1
            23 October 2014 at 9:22 am

            I can’t see that people with a vegan diet have superior outcomes to people with a vegeterian diet. With the proviso that high levels of dairy intake is dangerous to human health.

            • phillip ure 4.2.1.2.1.1
              23 October 2014 at 9:33 am

              aside from the cancer/casein-link campbell claims to have proven..?

              ..and of course there are also the twin-facts that we in nz have world-beating rates of consumption of dairy/cow-bye-products..

              ..(i think only iceland beats us..)

              ..and we also have world-beating rates of those cancers increasingly linked to the flesh/fat/bye-products diet..

              ..(especially breast cancer..)

              ..so make of that what you will..

              ..but if i were a woman with a family history of breast cancer..

              ..i’d be vegan..toot suite..!..

              ..why wouldn’t ya..?

              • The Al1en …
                23 October 2014 at 9:36 am

                http://www.thestar.com/life/2008/01/04/top_10_false_health_scares.html

                “Red meat and processed meat often have a high fat content, so if you eat them too often you could get fat – which has been shown to be a risk factor for several cancers, including breast cancer and colorectal cancer. A more accurate report would focus on how obesity as a whole can increase risk for cancer.”

                • phillip ure …
                  23 October 2014 at 10:29 am

                  ‘the star’…some hack-piece from 2007..?

                  ..really current/cutting-edge evidence you are proffering here..eh..?

                  ..having difficulties finding any..?

                  ..you’re funny..!

                  • The Al1en …
                    23 October 2014 at 10:31 am

                    In response to your unbalanced account I googled ‘false health scares’ and it was top link.

                    Again, you seem to attack the messenger and not the message, so in response I’ll repeat in case it hasn’t sunk in yet.

                    “Red meat and processed meat often have a high fat content, so if you eat them too often you could get fat – which has been shown to be a risk factor for several cancers, including breast cancer and colorectal cancer. A more accurate report would focus on how obesity as a whole can increase risk for cancer.”

                    There’s also, from 2012 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/health-scares-ignore/story?id=16712712

                    Including the classics ‘Nitrites in Cured Meats Cause Cancer’ and ‘Mercury in Fish is Dangerous’

                    • phillip ure …
                      23 October 2014 at 10:33 am

                      have crap ‘evidence’..just repeat it..that’ll work..!

                      ..heh..!..yr still being funny..!

                    • The Al1en …
                      23 October 2014 at 10:39 am

                      That’s laughable from a man who claims as his hero an old fuck who thinks not eating meat can reverse cancer as his proof and evidence.

                      You are quite within your rights to refute the facts, but you are so out on the extremist edge, your conclusions, skewered and slanted as they are, aren’t worth the price of the electrons they’re printed on.

                    • phillip ure …
                      23 October 2014 at 10:40 am

                      ‘old fuck’..?

                      ..ok..time to close this one down..methinks..

                      ..consider it done..

                    • The Al1en …
                      23 October 2014 at 10:47 am

                      “‘old fuck’..?”

                      The old fuck charlatan who claims cancer can be reversed by not eating meat. You know, you linked a story about him. Short term memory loss?

                      “..ok..time to close this one down..methinks..”

                      True to form. The last bastion of the vanquished.
                      Off you go, and don’t forget to take your ball when you run home crying 😉

                    • phillip ure …
                      23 October 2014 at 11:06 am

                      hmm..!.. The professor emeritus in nutritional biochemistry at Cornell University..(who you know as ‘old fuck’..)

                      ..(an obvious charlatan..!..)

                      ..vs. anonymous table-leg chewing standard-commenter/nutbar..

                      ..(an obvious authority..!..)

                      ..who to believe..?

                      ..i’m torn here..!

                    • The Al1en …
                      23 October 2014 at 11:11 am

                      “table-leg chewing standard-commenter/nutbar..”

                      To be fair that sounds more like a description of yourself, but whatever works for you.
                      Has to be remembered though, I haven’t ever claimed or advocated one can reverse cancer by abstaining from eating meat. That would be nuts.

                      “..(an obvious authority..!..)”

                      Yes it’s true. I can suss out a vested interest nutjob easy as.

                      “..who to believe..?”

                      I’m guessing you’ll go with the old fuck charlatan claiming he can reverse cancer by not eating meat.
                      Devoted aint you?

                    • The Al1en …
                      23 October 2014 at 11:22 am

                      “..who to believe..?”

                      Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria

                      Table 3 Page 4
                      http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088278&representation=PDF

                    • phillip ure …
                      23 October 2014 at 11:29 am

                      why do u insist on presenting vegetarian-‘evidence’/arguments..

                      ..(however dubious..)

                      ..in a vegan-argument..?

                      ..was that all u cd find..?

                      ..and austria..?

                      ..they mainline beef-fat there…

                      ..(and u do know i am not paying foil-overtime-rates..eh..?

                      ..this is all on yr own time..)

                    • The Al1en …
                      23 October 2014 at 11:33 am

                      Leaving the racism aside, If you have exact data scientifically on par with the Austrian study that makes your point, show it.

                      “..(and u do know i am not paying foil-overtime-rates..eh..?..this is all on yr own time..)”

                      I did note note the much higher levels of mental health issues affecting non meat eaters.
                      With smoking pot, that’s an enormous risk. Better have a double whopper with cheese and hope for the best.

                    • phillip ure …
                      23 October 2014 at 11:43 am

                      being ‘racist’ against austrians..?

                      ..that is both funny – and ironic beyond words..

                      ..in its’ own unique way..

                      ..heh..!

                      ..u r getting quite good at that clown-role..eh..?

                    • The Al1en …
                      23 October 2014 at 11:44 am

                      False mass generalisation about a group of people based on their nationality. Sounds racist to me.

                      The extras like clown role, and being funny mean nothing to me.
                      I know why you do it, it’s predictable and ultimately it won’t work.
                      It weakens your paper thin argument even more.

                    • phillip ure …
                      23 October 2014 at 12:05 pm

                      well the thing is..

                      ..u do talk so much shit…eh..?

                      .and u clearly aren’t very bright with it..

                      ..so the occurances of involuntary-humour on yr part..

                      ..are often and regular..(c.f..’racism’/austrians’..heh..!..)

                      ..hence yr earning of the ‘clown’-moniker..

                      ..it’s all yr own work..eh..?

          • The Al1en 4.2.1.2.2
            23 October 2014 at 9:32 am

            “The diet also gives a 100% guarantee that you are personally doing your bit to prevent animal cruelty.”

            That doesn’t bother me at all in regards to food.

            • phillip ure 4.2.1.2.2.1
              23 October 2014 at 9:34 am

              it does ‘bother’ others..

                • phillip ure …
                  23 October 2014 at 10:11 am

                  you really need that explained..?

                  • The Al1en …
                    23 October 2014 at 10:15 am

                    Nope. You think it’s animal cruelty to practice animal husbandry full stop, how are you going to be impartial and differentiate about what constitutes cruelty and best practice?

                    You can’t. True?

                    • phillip ure …
                      23 October 2014 at 10:25 am

                      industry ‘best practice’ = sow-crates..

                    • The Al1en …
                      23 October 2014 at 10:26 am

                      “industry ‘best practice’ = sow-crates..”

                      See, told ya you couldn’t do it. 😉

                    • phillip ure …
                      23 October 2014 at 11:08 am

                      industry ‘best-practice’ = the macerator…

                    • The Al1en …
                      23 October 2014 at 11:14 am

                      You still haven’t got your head around it then.
                      How are you going to be impartial and differentiate about what constitutes cruelty and best practice?
                      Clue – You can’t.

                    • phillip ure …
                      23 October 2014 at 11:50 am

                      if ‘best-practice’ = cruelty..

                      ..that makes ‘best practice’ an oxymoron…

                    • The Al1en …
                      23 October 2014 at 11:53 am

                      So you can’t have a rational informed opinion on what constitutes animal cruelty.
                      No worries.

                    • phillip ure …
                      23 October 2014 at 11:57 am

                      um..!..pain/suffering/killing = ‘cruelty’..

                      ..what can’t u understand about that..?

                      ..u can call it ‘best practice’..u can call it what u like..

                      ..that doesn’t alter what it is..

                    • The Al1en …
                      23 October 2014 at 12:06 pm

                      Best practice isn’t pain and suffering or cruelty. Best practice keeps animals well fed and cared for until slaughtered.
                      The killing isn’t cruelty. It’s the end of the line and avoids us eating our meat while it’s alive, which I agree would be…Unlike animals like lions and tigers who gnaw down on wriggling prey. Buggers.

                      So not altering ‘what it is’ depends on whether ‘what it is’ is a bad thing or not.
                      Your extreme position precludes you from holding a common sense baseline position on the subject. What do you not understand about that? lol

                    • phillip ure …
                      23 October 2014 at 12:12 pm

                      if ‘commonsense’ = animals suffering/being killed..

                      ..u r correct ..i am unable to take such a ‘commonsense’-view..

                      ..anything else..?

                    • The Al1en …
                      23 October 2014 at 12:52 pm

                      Exactly, your extremist views prevent you from debating the issue in good faith.

                      “..anything else..?”

                      Blame the green party for something, just for old times sake 😉

                    • boldsirbrian …
                      23 October 2014 at 12:57 pm

                      .
                      @ The Al1en

                      Thank you for taking the time with this conversation debunking all theories on the relationship between diet and cancer that there is no evidence for.

                      Until there is evidence, they are all possible topics for worthy research (noting many theories based on anecdotal evidence have already been researched many times). Science (as compared to religion) never claims the absolute answer on anything.

                      There does appear to be some links between diet and cancer, and they add weight to similar advice for overcoming obesity: Moderation of every major food group; Maintain a healthy weight; Keep fit.

                      I will not criticise the actions of the terminally ill. Depending on how much individuals have prospered from trading in money, or investing in lotto, they may gain some temporary mental relief by throwing some of that excess wealth at an abundance of medical and religious charlatans. (An alternative approach may be to throw the same amount of money at medical research, that may benefit future generations … or other worthy causes such as improvements in animal husbandry?)

                      Mr. Botany (B.)

                    • phillip ure …
                      23 October 2014 at 12:58 pm

                      i do ‘blame the green party’ for having idjits such as yrslf in their ranks..

                    • The Al1en …
                      23 October 2014 at 1:03 pm

                      Another urinalism. I’m not a member of any political party and in no way consider myself to be in anyone’s ‘rank’.
                      Swing and a miss.

                    • phillip ure …
                      23 October 2014 at 1:06 pm

                      @ bold brian..

                      so..the fevered imaginings of the allen..+ the daily mail..+ an article in the star..from 2007..

                      ..vs..The professor emeritus in nutritional biochemistry at Cornell University..

                      = a ‘debunking’ in yr dictionary..eh..?

                      ..i think it is more a case of what u want to believe/deny..eh..?

                    • The Al1en …
                      23 October 2014 at 1:14 pm

                      “There does appear to be some links between diet and cancer”

                      There sure is, and meat, like other food groups, should be taken in moderation.

                      “they may gain some temporary mental relief by throwing some of that excess wealth at an abundance of medical and religious charlatans. An alternative approach may be to throw the same amount of money at medical research, that may benefit future generations”

                      Let’s have them throwing dollars at getting well nourished kids in warm homes with a future to look forward to first.
                      Future generations would benefit from that right now.

                    • The Al1en …
                      23 October 2014 at 1:17 pm

                      “so..the fevered imaginings of the allen..+ the daily mail..+ an article in the star..from 2007..”

                      Or, and much less partisan and disingenuous

                      Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria
                      V
                      The professor emeritus in nutritional biochemistry at Cornell University..

                      “..i think it is more a case of what u want to believe/deny..eh..?”

                      That, my friend, is the irony moneyshot.
                      Want a tissue? lol

                    • phillip ure …
                      23 October 2014 at 5:16 pm

                      do you have a brain big enough to remember that when the first cancer warnings about tobacco were issued to a (mainly smoking) world..

                      ..that the howls of derision then were similar to yrs now..

                      (..there are always the pig-ignorant to have to deal with..

                      ..some are just noisier than others..)

                    • The Al1en …
                      23 October 2014 at 7:03 pm

                      I think we’ve had our fair share of screen space with this one, save to say it’s nothing like tobacco and cancer warnings being laughed away by big money.
                      People have been eating meat since after adam ate all the apple pies and looked how marvellously resilient and adaptable a species we have become. Billions of meat eaters with a shared ancestry and an impressive increasing life expectancy say it aint so.

                      What we’re eating along with our recommended meat allowances, processed, refined, chemical sprayed, irradiated, added to and de-nutrionalised as it often is, is where I’d start looking for carcinogens and cancer causers in food with suspicious intent. But that’s an uneducated opinion I haven’t googled so I could be way off like you.

    • vto 4.3
      23 October 2014 at 8:57 am

      Have read similar elsewhere pu. Makes entire sense and we may well all wake up to it one day, like we have after being told thalidomide was safe.

      One day in the future people will look back on us in the same way we look back at early surgeries and hospitals and shake our heads at the fuss that was raised when washing of hands was put in place in such institutions…. duh

      • phillip ure 4.3.1
        23 October 2014 at 9:01 am

        i just go on the evidence before my eyes..

        ..in that i know people who have been vegans for over 30 yrs..

        ..and they all seem to enjoy rude good-health..

        ..especially when compared with their animal-eating age-contemporaries..

        ..the differences are stark..

        ..(i’m just a newcomer..only been vegan for about 15 yrs..)

        ..(and..heh..!..local media is featuring the person who just won a national body-building title..

        ..he’s a vegan..go figure..!..eh.?..)

        • The Al1en 4.3.1.1
          23 October 2014 at 9:17 am

          Never mind the statistics and science don’t back up your evangelist agenda.

          • vto 4.3.1.1.1
            23 October 2014 at 9:20 am

            Mr Al1en, that same line was told to us about;

            245t
            1080
            cigarettes
            margarine
            sugar
            atom bombs
            formaldehyde
            thalidomide
            asbestos

            they all had science in support. At the time.

            • Colonial Rawshark 4.3.1.1.1.1
              23 October 2014 at 9:24 am

              panadol
              mobile phone radiation
              common food colourings

            • Draco T Bastard 4.3.1.1.1.2
              23 October 2014 at 10:13 am

              Well then, you’ll be easily able to point out where science is wrong now, won’t you?

              • phillip ure …
                23 October 2014 at 11:16 am

                what ‘science’ is that draco..

                ..aside from atkins nut-jobs..you’ll find no ‘science’ saying ‘eat-more-animals!”..will ya..?

                ..in fact most ‘science’ advises at best small amounts of red meat..a couple of times a week..

                ..’science’ most kiwis laugh in the face of..

                ..as they wolf down that weekly recommendation..

                ..most breakfasts..

                ..there is no ‘science’ making yr case..

                ..none to ‘prove wrong’..

                ..(and you left the ‘sniff!’ of disdain out of yr comment..

                ..where wd u like me to insert it..?..

                ..after the ‘then’..the ‘now’..or at the very end..?..after the ‘you’..?

                ..and u cd have multiple-‘sniffs’..if you so choose..

                ..it cd carry them..)

            • rawshark-yeshe 4.3.1.1.1.3
              23 October 2014 at 10:20 am

              aspartame …

            • TheContrarian 4.3.1.1.1.4
              23 October 2014 at 12:43 pm

              I’m not sure atom bombs were ever considered safe.

            • boldsirbrian 4.3.1.1.1.5
              23 October 2014 at 1:43 pm

              How did “atom bombs” ever have ‘scientific support’ for healthy living?

              I think you just made that whole list up, vto.

              Can you please provide references for the “lines” that we were told on all of these promoting healthy living?

              Some on the list still have legitimate use, depending on how they are used, where they are used, and how much is used: 1080, margarine, sugar, formaldehyde. (Two of these obviously not being used as foods)

              • vto …
                23 October 2014 at 2:07 pm

                No sorry I don’t have time to provide such references for all of those. Discount the list accordingly if you wish – non problema to me

                re atom bombs have you not seen any photos or information on people observing early atom bombings close at hand? Maralinga?

                • TheContrarian …
                  23 October 2014 at 3:50 pm

                  “re atom bombs have you not seen any photos or information on people observing early atom bombings close at hand? Maralinga?”

                  Yes I have seen that but I am pretty sure it wasn’t because they thought they were safe. They were purposely exposing people to radiation they knew wasn’t safe in order to study the results.

            • McFlock 4.3.1.1.1.6
              23 October 2014 at 4:14 pm

              Actually, without quibbling over individual items within your list, it was the weight of scientific evidence that demonstrated those things weren’t safe.

              Otherwise we’d still be showing kids cartoons that say Laramie Smooths (with the healthy asbestos filter) are the best smoke to have after a growing child’s breakfast of coloured sugar gelatinised in lard.

              • vto …
                23 October 2014 at 4:19 pm

                That’s right – genuine scientific evidence, not some scientific evidence conjured up for some alternative commercial outcome as were the early “scientific” studies for each of those items.

                So how do we know when scientific evidence is genuine and credible instead of something paid for and angled for a particular outcome? In Phil U’s case here – the science for and against the link between diet and cancer?

                Do we have to look behind the research to see who is paying for it? Other hidden strings?

                Perhaps we should ask our wise and considered PM John Key – he thinks that you can buy scientific research in order to suit particular outcomes.

                • phillip ure …
                  23 October 2014 at 5:11 pm

                  @ vto..

                  “..Do we have to look behind the research to see who is paying for it?..”

                  ..that can often be illuminating..

                • McFlock …
                  23 October 2014 at 6:26 pm

                  Sometimes research is robust, genuine, credible, and still wrong – random result, or an unknown confounding effect.

                  It’s the weight of evidence overall that directs the conclusions. The more nuanced the association, the more evidence is needed. All the research is accounted for unless obviously fraudulent, incomplete/flawed, or demonstrated to be an aberration by the rest of the research in the field.

                  Who’s paying for it doesn’t always mean the findings are flawed – ISTR in the last few years that the Koch bros commissioned a report into AGW (which they argue doesn’t exist), only to have the lead author change his tune and say it exists. But what if he had the same level of integrity and found that something had been missed by the vast majority of scientists? They would have tried to find where he screwed up, but over time it would have become the consensus view that agw was nonexistent. It comes down to the quality of the research.

                • TheContrarian …
                  23 October 2014 at 11:09 pm

                  “So how do we know when scientific evidence is genuine and credible instead of something paid for and angled for a particular outcome? ”

                  When it is testable and repeatable.

              • Ergo Robertina …
                23 October 2014 at 5:25 pm

                ‘it was the weight of scientific evidence that demonstrated those things weren’t safe.’

                Americans are lucky USA FDA commissioner Frances Kelsey did not subscribe to that view.
                Dr Kelsey refused to approve thalidomide for use in America until it could be proved to be safe, despite pressure to do so.
                She spared Americans the misery of the thalidomide birth defects by adopting the precautionary principle.

                • McFlock …
                  23 October 2014 at 6:09 pm

                  Dr Kelsey refused to approve thalidomide for use in America until it could be proved to be safe,

                  By the weight of scientific evidence

                  wikipedia:

                  The official in charge of the FDA, Frances Oldham Kelsey, did not rely on information from the company which did not include any test results. Richardson-Merrell was called on to perform tests and report the results. The company refused and demanded approval six times, and was refused each time. Nevertheless, a total of 17 children with thalidomide-induced malformations were born.[57]

                  • Ergo Robertina …
                    23 October 2014 at 6:40 pm

                    ‘By the weight of scientific evidence’

                    Don’t be disingenuous.
                    The point was Kelsey applied the precautionary principle while the evidence was gathered, which prevented people from being harmed. And that’s what ordinary people care about, not points on an academic scoreboard.

                    ‘Nevertheless, a total of 17 children with thalidomide-induced malformations were born.’

                    Some people got the drug overseas, thus there was a few cases.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 October 2014 at 7:11 pm

                      Actually, the point was that these days practical human knowledge is usually advanced by the accumulated weight of evidence in one direction or another, rather than one particular piece of research by one particular researcher.

                      I actually agree that (in general) drugs shouldn’t be used without thorough testing, and funnily enough thalidomide is a major justification for modern testing regimes.

                    • Ergo Robertina …
                      23 October 2014 at 8:16 pm

                      There’s stronger processes on several levels now, but we need regulators who think for themselves, like Kelsey, more than ever.
                      I would commend Dr Alistair Humphrey of the CDHB in this respect, for this week opposing the proposed Selwyn nitrate levels, and recently breaking ranks on the MPI vegetable poisoning report.
                      By the way, Kelsey did not look at the evidence in totality when applying the precautionary principle. Her focus was one particular English study showing nervous system damage.
                      One scientific study can warrant the application of the precautionary principle.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 October 2014 at 9:33 pm

                      One study might outweigh all the others, yes. But it would have to be a doozy, hence why I used the word “usually”.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      23 October 2014 at 10:50 pm

                      Good god people, why so old fashioned? High development cost drugs require massive sales in the first few years to hit budgeted targets before patents run out. This namby pamby approach around waiting for more evidence and yet more evidence to come in is a nonsense when you have only a short time to get a drug to market and make it a blockbuster hit to recoup investor money and make a decent return.

                      Just do your final safety trial in the market is a good way to go: in that scenario everyone is a winner, investors make big bucks, researchers get more people in more settings to do their research on, patients get access to newer more effective drugs faster.

                      The way to do it.

        • miravox 4.3.1.3
          23 October 2014 at 10:44 pm

          i just go on the evidence before my eyes..

          ..in that i know people who have been vegans for over 30 yrs..

          ..and they all seem to enjoy rude good-health..

          ..especially when compared with their animal-eating age-contemporaries..”

          I agree that a vegan diet can be incredibly healthful, but it’s a pity about Morrissey’s health woes

          And the child I knew who had cancer growing inside her little body before she’d even moved on to non-human milk.

  5. Draco T Bastard 5
    23 October 2014 at 8:38 am

    Only in the US

    Prisoners serving time in the state of Pennsylvania can now be sued for speaking up from behind bars after Governor Tom Corbett signed into law this week the Revictimization Relief Act that legislatures rushed to approve only days earlier.

    And the reason given is because the person behind bars has given enough to society that a university asked him to speak (via recording) to a few students.

    • Colonial Rawshark 5.1
      23 October 2014 at 8:46 am

      Some US judge just sentenced a woman to a few days jail time because she wouldn’t mow her lawns, contrary to local bylaws.

      Welcome to the (highly propagandised and highly incarcerated) land of the Free.

  6. boldsirbrian 6
    23 October 2014 at 8:40 am

    Question Time: President Key, did you have sexual relations with that girl?

    ‘President’ Key: The answer is No, not in my capacity as President

    • adam 6.1
      23 October 2014 at 10:46 am

      Question time: President Key, did you have a toke on that crack pipe?

      ‘President’ Key: The answer – No, not in my capacity as President

      Ad hominem

      Ad infinitum

  7. Chooky 7
    23 October 2014 at 9:11 am

    Inspiring Photo…Norm Kirk meeting Gough Whitlam !

    • Murray Rawshark 7.1
      24 October 2014 at 12:19 am

      I can’t help thinking what a dwarf Key is compared to those two. In all ways possible.

  8. Tracey 8
    23 October 2014 at 10:03 am

    the reserve bank says making people have 20% deposit has saved existing mortgage holders about 2% in interest rate hikes. it says the lvr stays until they are happy housing isnt fuelling inflation…

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1
      23 October 2014 at 10:11 am

      More proof that the market doesn’t work to provide what a society needs and that it just works to enrich a few.

    • greywarshark 8.2
      23 October 2014 at 6:51 pm

      Meanwhile the town house across the road in a desirable part of town in good condition and with the price dropped sits vacant and unsold even though it is situated between two good secondary schools and an excellent primary. and within walking distance of the city. And the sellers have bought elsewhere and must be suffering, they would never have envisaged it sitting for so long. How has raising the deposit helped new house buyers, and people needing a house for their own use? That is the question that gummint should be asking when assessing the worth of this policy. The answer is negative value to them, and just continuing the stress on these people that the housing bubble has caused already.

      A government lacking any idea or willingness to form policy that actually deals with our problems, it just sits on the seats in Parliament and their offices, making work for themselves and grooming future business partners, and collecting salary and perks.
      And telling people how good they are, while they borrow money and perform SFC tricks in minor form every day. Keeping their supporters happy, is all they need to do. While we try and get a left team that can win. Unfortunately they are confused about which team they are playing for, and taking sidebets on performance!

  9. Clemgeopin 9
    23 October 2014 at 10:08 am

    I am thinking that those Labour caucus members who are uncomfortable with the values, policies,direction or colour red of Labour, and those that are disloyal to the party or its elected leader, and those that tritorously leak info to enemies and media, and those that bring the party into disrepute by their unwise public statements on TV etc, and those that favour Neo liberal RW agenda should all leave and start their own party. Here are some suggestions for such a party:

    NAME : Federation Of Kiwi Rogue Socialists. [FOKRS]
    COLOUR : Yellowish red with grey spots.
    LEADER’S TITLE : The great pretender.

  10. joe90 10
    23 October 2014 at 11:37 am

    Not as satisfying as seeing Eric Prince before the courts would be but it’s a start.

    Now, after a 10-week trial and 28 days of deliberation, a jury in Washington has found three of the men – Paul Slough, Evan Liberty and Dustin Heard – guilty of a total of 13 charges of voluntary manslaughter and a total of 17 charges of attempted manslaughter.

    The fourth defendant, Slatten, who was alleged to have been first to open fire, was found guilty of a separate charge of first-degree murder. Slough, Liberty and Heard were found guilty of using firearms in relation to a crime of violence, a charge which can alone carry up to a 30-year mandatory sentence.

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/22/us-jury-convicts-blackwater-security-guards-iraq

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/22/blackwater-iraq-killings-verdicts-watershed-accountability

    • joe90 10.1
      23 October 2014 at 11:50 am

      Jeremy Scahill weighs in.

      Just as with the systematic torture at Abu Ghraib, it is only the low level foot-soldiers of Blackwater that are being held accountable. Prince and other top Blackwater executives continue to reap profits from the mercenary and private intelligence industries. Prince now has a new company, Frontier Services Group, which he founded with substantial investment from Chinese enterprises. Among its areas of focus is the African continent. Prince recently suggested that his forces at Blackwater could have confronted Ebola and ISIS. “If the Administration cannot rally the political nerve or funding to send adequate active duty ground forces to answer the call, let the private sector finish the job,” Prince recently wrote.

      https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/22/blackwater-guilty-verdicts/

  11. boldsirbrian 11
    23 October 2014 at 1:21 pm

    .
    I am thinking that if the views of the majority of commentators on this site are representative of the views of members of the Labour Party (An assumption that may very well be wrong) then there is a serious disconnect between the Party Membership and the views of potential Labour voters.

    In my opinion most of these voters do not significantly care about the differences between the agendas of party members and party caucus, if such differences exist. They simply have an expectation that those differences are (or should be) minor, and should be able to be sorted out easily, in comparison with the more difficult task of forming coalition deals with parties that may be more left, or more right than Labour.

    So as much as I will enjoy the privilege of voting for the Party Leader, I still think that the leadership voting system urgently needs to be discarded. Give the responsibility to caucus, coupled with information that comes from polling all eligible voters. Farrar may be a nasty weasel, but he does deliver much better political advice to Dirty John from polls, than Labour will ever get from Party members and affiliated unions.

    • swordfish 11.1
      23 October 2014 at 3:53 pm

      In fact, Labour does its own internal polling and focus group analysis with UMR.

      • Colonial Rawshark 11.1.1
        23 October 2014 at 4:02 pm

        $$$$$

      • boldsirbrian 11.1.2
        23 October 2014 at 4:47 pm

        @ swordfish (11.1)

        In fact, Labour does its own internal polling and focus group analysis with UMR.

        Which is little use to all those voting without access to those poll results. Which would be my main point in limiting the voting to the caucus (who I presume do have – or should have – access to such poll results)

        The poll result is definitely not the only issue that needs to be taken into account …. but it is a very important issue. Which candidate is the most electable?

        (I wonder what those ‘internal’ polls indicated about the preference of the public in the Leadership poll won by David Cunliffe? Did those polls ask that question? Did those polls determine how many more or less people would have voted Labour with each candidate as Leader? Is Robertson in this election gaining any advantage, or not, by declaring his preference for Deputy? These are the sort of questions where the answers are best not filed away in a library.)

        Mr. Botany (B.)

    • lprent 11.2
      23 October 2014 at 7:29 pm

      There are relatively few NZLP members commenting compared to the numbers of commenters.

      Read the about. The site simply wasn’t set up for NZLP members.

      There is one site that was largely setup for NZLP members. It was called Red Alert and it is essentially moribund because someone at the site started playing silly games.

      • boldsirbrian 11.2.1
        23 October 2014 at 9:48 pm

        @ lprent @ 11.2

        I take your point, lprent. Fortunately I did put a significant disclaimer on saying that was the case, or essential to my argument. (Which of course means that I could have left out the possible assumption in total, and still made the same point I wanted to make.) 🙂 My bad.

        I guess I should have said something along the lines of if you take the views of any small group eg the commentators on the Standard, the local wrestling club, the operatic society, or even the Members of the Labour Party, they are unlikely to be representative of the opinions of the 40-50% of voters that you hope will cast their vote in the direction of the Labour Party.

        If the Party want thats opinion, I think that a much better way is to use intelligent polling. And the results of those polls could be used constructively to help inform the decision of the ‘best’ Party Leader that meets the full needs of the Party.

        Mr. Botany (B.)

  12. The Al1en 12
    23 October 2014 at 1:35 pm

    A game with legs.

    The election was rubbish, the left fragmented and all we wanted was the policies to win it.
    Asking the brilliant minds, what would a sensible left wing manifesto look like?
    Imagine starting a new, well funded party, and you want to show the public what you’re about.
    With three years till kick off, what what you tell them?

    • McFlock 12.1
      23 October 2014 at 4:37 pm

      I actually thought the left as a whole had about the best policy package anyone could manage. Between the greens impmana and labour, we had food for kids, decent wage increases for the neediest as well as the middle class, a real plan to address housing for low and middle income groups, health and infrastructure relief, regional development, clean waterways, and a real chance at getting more jobs and sane security policies.

      Something didn’t go well tactically – some say Labour should have gone for the party vote more, but the greens were all about the party vote and didn’t make headway.
      Personally, I reckon it was the kdc distraction throughout the campaign, the fizzle on the 15th, and the terror raids in aus two days before, all exploited by a blatantly partizan mass media.

      • The Al1en 12.1.1
        23 October 2014 at 4:47 pm

        I agree there were some good policies spread around, so perhaps a part of failure was/is in the delivery, and in part the perception ‘the left’ were/are unable to work together despite labour pushing the 3 party government line to counter. The corporate msm and dirty politics a given hindrance.

        I am curious as to what a thestandard focussed grouped manifesto would read like, and how much appeal would/could be garnered from the less political out of it.

        • wekarawshark 12.1.1.1
          23 October 2014 at 5:49 pm

          did you just suggest that the standardistas work together on a manifesto, as in try and work on something together? can we burst out laughing now? 😉

          • McFlock 12.1.1.1.1
            23 October 2014 at 6:29 pm

            heh

          • The Al1en 12.1.1.1.2
            23 October 2014 at 6:49 pm

            You did, but the caveat was brilliant minds 😉

            I wouldn’t have a shot at bringing it together, but an invited guest list could create something cool, contemporary and quite inspiring.
            No point in having all the bright ideas to see them wasting on a blog.

            • The Al1en 12.1.1.1.2.1
              23 October 2014 at 7:07 pm

              ‘I did’ or ‘you did read correctly’

              I’d send you an invite to input.

            • wekarawshark 12.1.1.1.2.2
              23 October 2014 at 8:38 pm

              That’s not a bad idea actually. If it was a dedicated thread and was well moderated.

              • The Al1en …
                23 October 2014 at 10:26 pm

                I think a series of threads over time, offering a selection of either/or options, proffered by the group for discussion and selection.

                I’ll nominate five people and they then nominate five more to form the policy committee and sit back and see what you all come up with if you like?

                • wekarawshark …
                  23 October 2014 at 11:58 pm

                  “No point in having all the bright ideas to see them wasting on a blog.”

                  That’s my biggest frustration about the place (that and the intelligence wasted on clever putdowns and abuse). Would love to see the passion and thought go somewhere.

                  I think a series of threads over time, offering a selection of either/or options, proffered by the group for discussion and selection. I’ll nominate five people and they then nominate five more to form the policy committee and sit back and see what you all come up with if you like?

                  Can you explain that a bit more? Either/or options? Committee working offsite or onsite?

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    24 October 2014 at 12:23 am

                    Maybe we can develop the IMP online policy development model more. Using Loomio but also a combination of other online tools if they are required.

                    Although I am a little hesitant to go down the path of yet more policy development. Coming up with plans to deliver more left wing infrastructure eg community currencies, alternative media channels eg radio, or to extend the reach/capabilities of The Standard, might be a more useful (less Wellington centric) way ahead.

          • b waghorn 12.1.1.1.3
            23 October 2014 at 7:03 pm

            I know your having a laugh but as a new entrant standard follower I have found my self thinking it’s no wonder the left is in trouble if the people here spend so much time arguing.

  13. paddy 13
    23 October 2014 at 1:37 pm

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/257600/activist-begs-judge-to-stop-house-sale

    Looks Penny Bright will have to cough up $33,000 to Auckland Council or end up homeless but with $500,000 to go elsewhere. I cannot see the judge tolerating someone who WONT pay as opposed to someone who CANNOT pay. Hope i’m wrong and Penny gets a fair go.

  14. travellerev 14
    23 October 2014 at 1:57 pm

    Are New Zealand MP’s Bullied Into Rubber Stamping War?

  15. alwyn 15
    23 October 2014 at 2:10 pm

    I thought it was only the New Zealand First Party where the members of their caucus don’t talk to each other.
    This was when Winston chose to nominate Ron Mark for Speaker without even telling Ron about the idea.
    The Green Party obviously need to start talking to each other. Then we wouldn’t have to waste thousands of dollars while a Green Party member spends time in Parliament finding out what one of her parties leaders is up to.
    From todays questions –

    “JAN LOGIE to the Member in charge of the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill: Why has the member adopted the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill?”

    • Barfly 15.1
      23 October 2014 at 2:24 pm

      There’s more than one bill on that subject isn’t there?

      There’s Hone’s bill picked up by Metira Turei

      and also a bill by some one else…..

      was it Shearer? Or am I misremembering?

      • alwyn 15.1.1
        23 October 2014 at 5:06 pm

        You are quite right. I had forgotten about Shearer’s bill.
        This is Meteria’s one, taken over from Hone though.
        The two bills are, from the Parliamentary website.

        Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill (Harawira)
        and
        Education (Food in Schools) Amendment Bill (Shearer)

        The name is the one for the ex- Hone, now Meteria bill. And yes I know why she is asking the question. It gives Turei the chance to make a brief speech. A waste of time and money isn’t it?

        • Colonial Rawshark 15.1.1.1
          24 October 2014 at 12:27 am

          only because you lean towards authoritarianism, hence figure that giving Opposition MPs any ability or reason to speak is a waste.

        • Murray Rawshark 15.1.1.2
          24 October 2014 at 12:46 am

          ” A waste of time and money isn’t it?”
          No.
          Key being a dick when asked questions is a waste of time and money.

        • felix 15.1.1.3
          24 October 2014 at 2:00 am

          “A waste of time and money isn’t it?”

          I think the standing orders committee should consider doing away with patsy questions altogether.

          As I understand it, Question Time is for the Opposition to hold The Government to account. I have never understood how allowing ministers to make brief speeches on topics of their choosing assists this purpose.

  16. adam 16
    23 October 2014 at 3:04 pm

    Just in case you forgot we got ourselves another war here is a reminder Oh and we have been fighting this silly little war for the last 30 years – at least.

    Music thethe from album Mind bomb.

  17. vto 17
    23 October 2014 at 3:04 pm

    So Canada goes to war against some people in the middle east.

    Then some of those people in the middle east attack Canada’s military.

    what the f#@k did they expect? flowers? to be left in peace?

    And then to label this a “terrorist” attack – what a joke. It was an attack on military at war. It was not a terrorist attack it was clearly a military attack.

    And to think that Key is putting us in the firing line too ……. brace for it people. Key is bringing war to our islands.

    • pcplodding 17.1
      23 October 2014 at 3:27 pm

      Are you acting [deleted] for the sake of acting [deleted] ?

      [r0b: A while back a participant here who had a child with an intellectual disability asked us to crack down on the use of that word as a term of abuse.]

      • vto 17.1.1
        23 October 2014 at 4:53 pm

        pcplodding, why is it described as a “terrorist” attack when it is an attack on a military at war with the attacker?

        Why is it not described correctly as an act of war?

        Tell me I am keen to hear your thinking.

      • pcplodding 17.1.2
        23 October 2014 at 5:46 pm

        @r0b fair call

        VTO you are a sack of mindless shit.

        • vto 17.1.2.1
          23 October 2014 at 5:48 pm

          That’s a good one.

          Now, how about the issue at hand. Got an answer?

          • pcplodding 17.1.2.1.1
            23 October 2014 at 6:16 pm

            It is described as a terrorist attack as it was an attack by a radicalised Canadian designed to cause terror against a civilian target.

            http://www.nationalpost.com/index.html?__federated=1

            The Canadian military was not and is not at war with the person responsible for this act.

            I repeat you are a sack of mindless shit.

            • vto 17.1.2.1.1.1
              23 October 2014 at 6:20 pm

              No it wasn’t a civilian target.

              The person, presumably sympathising with the people Canada has declared war on, attacked a military person. Did you miss that bit? Also, Parliament is generally where orders to go to war are made – an entirely legitimate military target.

              Your own description defies the facts.

              It is you with the shit for brains, clearly. Go read some history and learn some law idiot.

              • pcplodding …
                23 October 2014 at 6:26 pm

                You are clearly a feral inbred troll
                and I am no longer interested in feeding you obvious trolling

                • vto …
                  23 October 2014 at 7:24 pm

                  fuck me, that was the most useless series of comments I think I have ever come across.

                  no answer, clearly failing and flailing, so resort to abuse. Loser.

                • vto …
                  23 October 2014 at 7:37 pm

                  Hey pcplodding – how about this for a bit more …..

                  Did you notice how on te news tonight there was virtually no description of this military event as a terrorist attack? Go and have a look and listen. Even Key didn’t refer to it as a terrorist attack and he is softening us all up for going to war.

                  Whatcha gonna do now?

                  Whatcha gonna think?

            • vto 17.1.2.1.1.2
              23 October 2014 at 6:46 pm

              eh pcplodding, just a bit more for your brainshit to absorb.

              If this person had wanted to actually commit an act of terror then why didn’t he visit a shopping mall, or a hospital or some other such public place?

              Why did he choose to attack a soldier with a gun? Why did he choose to attack the seat of Canada’s power with security everywhere and which has gone to war with his people? Why did he choose these military targets instead of a civilian one?

              I think you are just one of those people who believes everything you are told. I bet you voted for Key. Mindless. You would have supported the leader of Germany in the 1930s going by your level of thinking.

            • Colonial Rawshark 17.1.2.1.1.3
              23 October 2014 at 6:58 pm

              Hey pcplodding, Canada has been helping drop munitions on to Afghan and Iraqi civilians (oh I’m sorry, dropping munitions on to ‘legitimate targets’ which happen to be right next to the civilians) for years now.

              (I guess its now NZs time to help out in this general effort, to make us, you know, safer. Because killing never ends in even more killing).

              Maybe you can see now how the West is seen by 3/4 of all peoples as the biggest purveyors of death and terror in the world.

  18. ianmac 18
    23 October 2014 at 3:55 pm

    I think Transrail wants to collapse the passenger services.
    The rail Christchurch to Picton is cancelled over winter till 26 September.
    About a year or so ago the fare was $48 – $100 with specials, backpackers, students, pensioner rates as well.
    Now there is only one fare: $159. That will of course cut back the numbers so that eventually the trip will lapse for want of patronage.
    Economics with political push.

    • Colonial Rawshark 18.1
      23 October 2014 at 8:49 pm

      starve starve starve then deliver the coup de grace – with appropriate crocodile tears for the cameras, of course.

  19. Tracey 19
    23 October 2014 at 4:01 pm

    Press statement in relation to search of Nicky Hager’s home

    Thursday, 23 October 2014, 12:57 pm
    Press Release: Terrace Chambers
    Press statement in relation to the search of Nicky Hager’s home

    On 2 October 2014, Nicky Hager’s home in Wellington was searched by police. Mr Hager asserted that documents kept at his house were protected by privilege, including because they contained information that might identify confidential sources. Rather than search those documents, the Police sealed them and lodged them with the High Court pending directions from the Court. Mr Hager had concerns that the search was unlawful and sought legal advice.

    Mr Hager has now had a chance to consult his lawyers. He believes even more strongly that the Police have acted outside of the law in seizing his property and seeking to search through all of his documents. Mr Hager has decided to challenge the Police’s actions by way of judicial review. He expects to launch those proceedings during the next few days.

    In the meantime, the Police are asserting that there is no valid claim for privilege over the documents. The Police are seeking the leave of the Court to file their own proceedings in order to argue that there is no privilege and that they should be allowed to review all of the documents. A preliminary teleconference was held today (23 October 2014) between the High Court, and lawyers for Mr Hager and the Police, to discuss these issues.

    • Anne 19.1
      23 October 2014 at 4:56 pm

      My first response to this info. is that the police are acting under instructions from higher up the ladder but how far up the ladder is a very interesting question. In fact is it a ladder which extends beyond NZ? Could the Slater complaint merely be the excuse to sift through Hager’s other work? Example: the FBI/NSA/GCSB modus operandi?

    • RedBaronCV 19.2
      23 October 2014 at 7:45 pm

      1. The cops, the lawyers and the rest of the government should have to account for every last little bit of taxpayer dollars that they spend turning Nicky Hager over. He hasn’t damaged the NZ public interest one little bit so why the hell are we funding it.

      2. What was the timing around raiding him while he wasn’t there. I hope he asks if they have been tracking him to see where he is and who he meets – it all seemed a bit convenient.

      3. Yes I assume they want to sift through everything else. If only so they can drift along and lean on a few other people.

  20. ianmac 20
    23 October 2014 at 4:31 pm

    The precedent set by this will have far reaching consequences. The irony re Cameron Slater is huge.

  21. One Anonymous Bloke 21
    23 October 2014 at 4:44 pm

    If CCTV footage isn’t “property”, what is it?

    Did “Tindallgate” (fuck me if I don’t hate these dummheit media labels) just get interesting?

  22. marty mars 22
    23 October 2014 at 5:52 pm

    naughty mr key

    Having reviewed Mr Key’s responses overnight, Mr Carter today said that was likely correct for most of Dr Norman’s questions. However, one where Dr Norman asked if Slater was correct when he said Mr Key had told him the mother of a car crash victim was “the same woman f-ing feral bitch that screams at him when he goes to Pike River meetings” should have been answered.
    The question “made a connection to the actions of the Prime Minister in response to Pike River Mine Tragedy,” Mr Carter said.

    “A connection having been made to a matter of ministerial responsibility an informative answer should be given.”

    and a glimpse into the sparse world inside the key brain

    Earlier today Mr Key stood by his claim that his conversations with Slater were not in his capacity as Prime Minister.

    “I wear a number of hats obviously, one as the leader of the National Party, one as Prime Minister of New Zealand and one as a citizen.”

    Which capacity he was acting in was determined by “the context around what I think I was doing”.

    On that basis Mr Key was “quite comfortable that in the correspondence and discussions I’ve had with Cameron Slater, which are not that great in number, are done so not in my capacity as Prime Minister”.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11347190

    ‘the context around what i think i was doing’ – what a hollow person key is.

    • phillip ure 22.1
      23 October 2014 at 9:09 pm

      q-time next tues promises to be interesting..

      ..i’m picking there will be a veritable storm of slater-questions for key…

      ..let the fun begin..!

  23. marty mars 23
    23 October 2014 at 6:18 pm

    How many times have you sent important information to the wrong person because you didn’t check the email address?

    Prime Minister John Key’s office briefing notes have once again been accidentally sent to a reporter ahead of a media conference.

    key says,

    “At the end of the day I think you’d say it was unfortunate, but the reality as I understand it was an Mfat person who was putting together some briefing notes for me accidentally sent them to NewsTalkZB. Email systems have a habit of remembering email addresses and from time to time accidents or mistakes occur… It’s just so easy to do.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11347165

    “At the end of the day I think you’d say it was unfortunate” – ummm what about you johnbo – what do you fink?

  24. boldsirbrian 24
    23 October 2014 at 7:36 pm

    I think it’s time for another Leunig cartoon. Obviously in an Australian context (Liberals and Labour) but it transfers equally as well to New Zealand.

    The Aliens came in three space ships …….. (with thanks to Leunig) 🙂

  25. Colonial Rawshark 25
    23 October 2014 at 10:29 pm

    UK police arrest young man who throws a water bottle for ‘Plinth Guy’ protestor to catch. This is the kind of police state assf*ckery which seems to be coming to all FVEY nations pretty much simultaneously.

  26. Colonial Rawshark 26
    23 October 2014 at 10:39 pm

    Kelvin Davis gives Hone Harawira some good hard kicks

    About “manning up” over Hone’s hiring an alleged sex offender on Parliamentary Services money – but Davis forgets about a little thing called “presumption of innocence.”

    http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/harawira-hired-sex-offenders-with-taxpayer-money-2014102318

    And interesting how these documents were “leaked.” So they think Harawira might stage a come back in TTT 2017 and want to kill that possibility dead ASAP.

  27. Murray Rawshark 27
    24 October 2014 at 1:15 am

    Another Open Mike which has a first half devoted to the cult of Vega. Tomorrow it’ll probably be how the Greens gifted Ohariu to Dunne. It gets a bit boring, just a bit.

    • GregJ 27.1
      24 October 2014 at 2:07 am

      You know at first I thought “Cult of Vega” was a reference to something from the film “Contact”!

      Then again PU does seem a bit off planet some days! (or as they would say in Babylon 5 “he’s gone beyond the Rim”) 😈